9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (4) TMI 453X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ary, 1999 against the appellants by classifying their product under Chapter Heading 87.14 of the CETA, after invoking the extended period of limitation. 2. The facts are not much in dispute. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of speedometers which are fitted in various types of scooters/motor cycles. Some of the speedometers manufactured by them had features like beam-light and pilot turn indicator. These speedometers are being manufactured by them for 4 types of two-wheelers, i.e. Bajaj Super FE type speedometer for scooters, Enfield Motorcycles, Bajaj M-80 (motorcycle speedometer) and Bajaj Super Scooter. They had been classifying the speedometers under Chapter Heading 90.29 of CETA. Their classification declarations were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be time-barred, the issue of classification may not be gone into and be left open. Learned SDR has also no objection if the limitation issue is decided first before coming to the classification issue. 5. We have heard both sides on the question of limitation. The show cause notice is dated 1-12-2000 while the period for which the duty demand has been raised in the show cause notice is from November, 1995 to February, 1999. On the face of it, the show cause notice had been issued after the expiry of the normal period of limitation. The extended period of limitation has been invoked by alleging that the appellants misdeclared their product under Chapter Heading 90.29, as is evident from the show cause notice. The learned Commissioner i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cturing speedometers for the two-wheelers and were clearing them as such and not as panels. There is nothing on record to suggest if the clearances of the speedometers were made by the appellants as panels. There is also no material on record to suggest that any officer of the Department visited the factory of the appellants and found that the declarations made by them in the classification list from time to time, were incorrect. The fact that the classification declarations were accepted by the Department as furnished by the appellants without any objection goes a long way to establish that the Department was satisfied with the facts disclosed in those declarations and that is why no objection was raised ever by the Department while approv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n our view, the extended period of limitation could not be invoked against the appellants. As observed above, they had been filing the classification declarations regarding the manufacture of the speedometers for two-wheelers from time to time with the Department and all those were approved without any objection. The Department very well knew that the appellants were manufacturing the speedometers which were to be fitted into the two-wheelers, the details of which were furnished by them in their declarations. Therefore, they could not be charged with the allegations of suppression of material facts about the manufacture of speedometers, by the Department so as to invoke the extended period of limitation. They had been filing the RT-12 retur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
